Students who take Economics Classes vote Republican

To briefly preview our results, those who took more economics classes or who majored in economics or business were more likely to be members of the Republican party and less likely to join the Democratic party. Those findings hold even after controlling for the higher salary,higher equity in real estate holdings, and earning a graduate degree. Neither the number ofeconomics classes taken nor majoring in economics are related to the decision to vote in the 2000presidential election, or in the most recent state or local elections.

Interesting study from the New York Fed that shows voting Republican is directly correlated to the number of economics classes a person takes in college.

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

If Keynesian economics were taught they probably would vote Independent over Republican.

Theye have refused their Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Theye have erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

Theye kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies

Theye have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

Theye plundered and destroyed the lives of our people.

Theye are at this time transporting Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.

If Keynesian economics were taught they probably would vote Independent over Republican.

"Keynesian" economics, as in traditional "demand is everything" economics isn't really taught anymore; it is no longer part of the mainstream. What people call "Keynesian" economics today is really "neo-Keynesian" economics, which is a mix of traditional Keynes, behavioral economics, old-school-Friedman-style monetarist economics, a smattering of Adam Smith-like classical economics, and a mix of some various odds and ends. In general, neo-Keynesian economics is centrist, generally favoring less government regulation in the economy (plus low taxes, less spending, less regulation). However, they are incredibly supportive of central banks and believe that central banks can add fuel to booms and mitigate busts. Basically, when things are going well, thank the central banks, and when things aren’t going well, it is because the central bank didn’t make the right decisions. They do support fiscal stimulus (higher spending and lower taxes) in a temporary fashion and/or when central banks fail to act.

Unfortunately, this distinction is lost on conservative blowhards who go mental at the word “Keynesian”.

"Keynesian" economics, as in traditional "demand is everything" economics isn't really taught anymore; it is no longer part of the mainstream. What people call "Keynesian" economics today is really "neo-Keynesian" economics, which is a mix of traditional Keynes, behavioral economics, old-school-Friedman-style monetarist economics, a smattering of Adam Smith-like classical economics, and a mix of some various odds and ends. In general, neo-Keynesian economics is centrist, generally favoring less government regulation in the economy (plus low taxes, less spending, less regulation). However, they are incredibly supportive of central banks and believe that central banks can add fuel to booms and mitigate busts. Basically, when things are going well, thank the central banks, and when things aren’t going well, it is because the central bank didn’t make the right decisions. They do support fiscal stimulus (higher spending and lower taxes) in a temporary fashion and/or when central banks fail to act.

Unfortunately, this distinction is lost on conservative blowhards who go mental at the word “Keynesian”.

They still hang to the basic fallacies of Maynard's gobbledygook; sticky wages, idle resources, full employment via printing/spending.

Krugman's death star fits in fine with Maynard's hole-digging.

Bad ideas rarely die, they just continually repackage themselves to conceal their failings.

Marxism comes to mind, rebranded and relegated to the softer sciences, mostly, but still alive and kicking.

"For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

They still hang to the basic fallacies of Maynard's gobbledygook; sticky wages, idle resources, full employment via printing/spending.

Krugman's death star fits in fine with Maynard's hole-digging.

Bad ideas rarely die, they just continually repackage themselves to conceal their failings.

Marxism comes to mind, rebranded and relegated to the softer sciences, mostly, but still alive and kicking.

See the above on going mental at the word Keynesian. And you've also $#@! your pants about "Marxism" being alive and well.
Sticky prices/wages is still taught because there is a cornucopia of academic research and evidence supporting the theory (indeed, only some classical economists even debate sticky wages anymore). Same with idle resources (if you think there are never idle resources, you don't have eyes, ears, or a brain). But neo-Keynesian economics balks at the idea that you can reach full employment via printing and spending. Their whole theory (which is backed by some impressive modeling) is that there is a natural rate of unemployment, and if you engineer more employment, you will get inflation. This will happen no matter how the extra employment is created; through government spending money or the private sector spending money. They're dubious about government spending (other than core functions) except in the case of distress; these distressed situations are where unemployment becomes higher than the "natural rate" and fiscal stimulus can accelerate a return to normalcy. Although again, they favour monetary policy over fiscal policy, and generally also believe that central banks can prevent distress using higher interest rates/anti-stimulatory monetary policy.

Then again, you might find some neo-Keynesians who disagree on the bulk of what I just typed. It is one of the least ideological schools out there, generally preaching data, academia, and new research. Of course, that makes it subject to its own biases (they don't seem to catch on to the latest research, for one), but it also provides for a very large tent. It is the reason why neo-Keynesian economists tend to have the best scores when it comes to economic predictions (like being the best American wine, but I digress...and they tend to be the best out of the different schools they poll, but I digress again)

If you believe in markets, you'll realize the truth that over the course of time, bad ideas die, and good ones live on. That's the reason why classical economics is pretty much dead as a school, why Friedmanite Chicago school economics is gone, why Marxist economics only exists in the fringe corners of the internet, why Austrian economics is a joke...hell, it is the reason why old-school traditional Keynesian economics generally has no place in academia, trade journals, or finance publications anymore.